Californians are now in their second century of direct democracy. The state ballot initiative process that Gov. Hiram Johnson won approval for in 1911 remains highly popular with voters, many of whom relish the chance to second-guess or overrule the Legislature on major issues.

But direct democracy in the Golden State has long been hurt by poorly drafted initiatives that fail to address key issues. The latest example is one of the highest-profile measures in recent years: Proposition 64, the 2016 initiative that legalized recreational use of marijuana by adults.

Its main advocates — led by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom — asserted that Proposition 64 was a carefully crafted, thoroughly vetted measure that addressed regulatory, taxation and marketing questions and that anticipated future headaches.

That’s not the view of the League of California Cities and the California Police Chiefs Association. They’re furious with the state’s approval earlier this month of regulations drafted by the state Bureau of Cannabis Control that held that marijuana-delivery companies with proper credentials could operate throughout the state — including in the many cities and counties that have refused to allow the opening of recreational marijuana stores.

The cities and chiefs cite the provision in Proposition 64’s full text that states it would “allow local governments to ban nonmedical marijuana businesses.” But the cannabis bureau cites a provision in Senate Bill 94, a measure fleshing out Proposition 64 that was approved with bipartisan support in the Legislature in 2017. It states, “A local jurisdiction shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or cannabis products on public roads by a licensee acting in compliance with this division and local law.”

So is that really conclusive? The provision explicitly says delivery services must comply with “local law.” When the legal battles begin, judges are going to have to make a decision that should have been pinned down explicitly in the ballot measure.

Alas, there’s nothing new about that. The most famous of all California ballot initiatives, 1978’s Proposition 13, was billed as requiring full property tax reassessments of properties that had changed owners. But because of vague language, a parcel isn’t subject to reassessment after it is sold if no single individual, company or organization owns more than half the property.

Another high-profile ballot measure — 1994’s Proposition 187 — also lacked adequate vetting. It would have denied unauthorized immigrants access to non-emergency health care, public education and other services in the state. Within days of its controversial passage, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the proposition from taking effect on the grounds that the federal government has sole jurisdiction over immigration policy. The law was thrown out permanently in 1997.

And Proposition 64 isn’t the only flawed measure enacted in 2016. Proposition 57, which reclassified many “nonviolent” crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, introduced the term “nonviolent felony offense” but left uncertainty about what was violent. The scope of the list has been the subject of a legal dispute, and NBC Los Angeles reported last year that prisoners with violent pasts had been released.

There are many more headache-inducing examples of such sloppiness. Too often, direct democracy becomes debacle democracy — even with the high-profile measures that in theory have been the most carefully polished. Californians deserve far better.